Record firms sue allofmp3.com

Mr. Presentable

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6199237.stm

Excerpt:
"The defendant's entire business... amounts to nothing more than a massive infringement of plaintiffs' exclusive rights under the Copyright Act and New York law," according to papers filed as part of the US legal action.

I wouldn't have thought New York law extended to Russian websites

the_syco

a massive infringement of plaintiffs' exclusive rights under the Copyright Act and New York law

Its a damn pity then that its legal in Russia, then, isn't it?:D :rolleyes:

Craig Murphy

allofmp3 and a new russian one that's popped up called lavamus are totally corrupt sites and have no right to sell the music they do. They allegedly pay royalties to a bogus russian performing rights organisation, but the artists and labels receive no money whatsoever. On top of that they're apparently selling the mp3s dirt cheap to attract customers and they're then selling on their credit card details to crooks. Some of our releases are on these sites and they don't even have the right tracks for them. When i contacted them about how our releases got onto the sites i was basically told to F%^K OFF!

greglo23

thanks for the name of the new site there Craig.
they take Paypal even.:)

Lump

Well the site still works.

John

Anti

more free music \o/

killbillvol2

Craig Murphy wrote:

allofmp3 and a new russian one that's popped up called lavamus are totally corrupt sites and have no right to sell the music they do. They allegedly pay royalties to a bogus russian performing rights organisation, but the artists and labels receive no money whatsoever. On top of that they're apparently selling the mp3s dirt cheap to attract customers and they're then selling on their credit card details to crooks. Some of our releases are on these sites and they don't even have the right tracks for them. When i contacted them about how our releases got onto the sites i was basically told to F%^K OFF!

You have proof of that? Pray share it.

Cuddlesworth

Although I don't agree with allofmp3.com, there is little the US can do against it while they operate inside of Russia. Any lawsuits filed in the US are a complete waste of time.

If the music industry had taken advantage of the use of the internet as a medium for music releases, instead of fighting it at every step and charging ridicules amounts of money for royalties which the artists see little of sites like allofmp3 would find it hard to remain is business.

Anti

krazy_8s wrote:

Although I don't agree with allofmp3.com, there is little the US can do against it while they operate inside of Russia. Any lawsuits filed in the US are a complete waste of time.

If the music industry had taken advantage of the use of the internet as a medium for music releases, instead of fighting it at every step and charging ridicules amounts of money for royalties which the artists see little of sites like allofmp3 would find it hard to remain is business.

truer words are yet to be spoken.

The Sparrow

krazy_8s wrote:

Although I don't agree with allofmp3.com, there is little the US can do against it while they operate inside of Russia. Any lawsuits filed in the US are a complete waste of time.

If the music industry had taken advantage of the use of the internet as a medium for music releases, instead of fighting it at every step and charging ridicules amounts of money for royalties which the artists see little of sites like allofmp3 would find it hard to remain is business.

Why don`t you agree with allofmp3.com? I can`t find anything about them not to agree and support. I mean if it is agreed that it is a perfectly legal website (at least in Russia) then what seems to be the problem with them if they are doing nothing illegal?

That lawsuit seems ridiculous as does the bogus statement by Craig Murphy above which makes an outlandish claim against allofmp3.com with absolutely no evidence to back it up.

As far as I am concerned, record companies have been ripping off people for years and anybody that can legally put a dent in that has my full support!

Snowbat

krazy_8s wrote:

there is little the US can do against it while they operate inside of Russia. Any lawsuits filed in the US are a complete waste of time.

In this case a group of four US record labels, though the US government have been applying their own pressure via the Office of the United States Trade Representative.

With a default judgement, the group could go after the allofmp3.com domain name registered by REGISTER.COM (headquartered in New York where the suit was filed).

e360 Insight tried to pull a similar stunt against spamhaus.org but that domain was registered through French registrar Gandi so e360's only US avenue of attack was ICANN.

Stephen

If the "legit" online music stores charged more reasonable rates and had non-DRM'd files then the likes of Allofmp3 would be out of business, but they don't, so Allofmp3 thrives.

Lump

If all else fails just get CD's from the library and *Legal Edit* Copy them to *More legal edit* Copying is bad......

John

Cuddlesworth

woooo232 wrote:

Why don`t you agree with allofmp3.com? I can`t find anything about them not to agree and support. I mean if it is agreed that it is a perfectly legal website (at least in Russia) then what seems to be the problem with them if they are doing nothing illegal?

There is legaly wrong and moraly wrong. They are selling other peoples property and hard work without permission, and paying them nothing.

It's no different then stealing, and people are paying them for the privalege of stolen goods. Are you the type of person who gets his house robbed, then goes out and buys stolen goods to replace the ones that had been taken?

Also there are rumours that the website is funded by the Russian mafia.


As for the domain name idea, all the cases so far that have tried to do that have failed either in court or on appeal. It's an area Us law doesn't want to go into.

humanji

krazy_8s wrote:

Also there are rumours that the website is funded by the Russian mafia.

There are also rumours that aliens crash landed at Roswell. Doesn't make it true, though.

The Sparrow

krazy_8s wrote:

There is legaly wrong and moraly wrong. They are selling other peoples property and hard work without permission, and paying them nothing.

It's no different then stealing, and people are paying them for the privalege of stolen goods. Are you the type of person who gets his house robbed, then goes out and buys stolen goods to replace the ones that had been taken?

Also there are rumours that the website is funded by the Russian mafia.


As for the domain name idea, all the cases so far that have tried to do that have failed either in court or on appeal. It's an area Us law doesn't want to go into.

I don`t find it in any way morally wrong... It is a business that is following the letter of the law perfectly... You should be more worried about the morality of Itunes or whoever ripping people off by charging 99 cents a track when they have zero overheads to cover. And you seem to forget that they do pay royalties to the recording association in Russia, therefore implicitly gaining the permission of to sell what they do. And if you don`t have proof of it being run by the russian mafia then don`t post it! Its just as ridiculous as the other guy saying he thinks they steal your credit card info. Neither point has been backed up by a shred of evidence!

If I replaced stolen items from my house with other stolen items that would be illegal whereas this is LEGAL! There is no comparison.

Cuddlesworth

woooo232 wrote:

I don`t find it in any way morally wrong... It is a business that is following the letter of the law perfectly... You should be more worried about the morality of Itunes or whoever ripping people off by charging 99 cents a track when they have zero overheads to cover. And you seem to forget that they do pay royalties to the recording association in Russia, therefore implicitly gaining the permission of to sell what they do. And if you don`t have proof of it being run by the russian mafia then don`t post it! Its just as ridiculous as the other guy saying he thinks they steal your credit card info. Neither point has been backed up by a shred of evidence!

If I replaced stolen items from my house with other stolen items that would be illegal whereas this is LEGAL! There is no comparison.

Ok, first of all allofmp3 has rumours of Mafia backing for a number of reasons. They can out quickly with a lot of backing money. Now if you have ever gone to a bank to get any money, try going to one saying that you are going to set up a online music company, which defies copyright laws nearly everywhere outside of your country, during the Internet Bubble pop years. The russian mafia has been using pirated goods as a cash cow for many years, and I don't find it that hard to believe that somebody with some brains decided to back this and keep a few politicans in his pocket to prevent law changes that could be detrimantal to profits.

But as I said before it's a rumour and I have no evidence. And with the current climate in Russia as far as deaths of investigating journalists and corruption in both poilce and courts, we more than likley wont see any for a while.

As for not seeing anything wrong with this, mabye I should use another analogy. Picture this, you have spent 6 months of your life in a studio. 6 hard months of constant work, living on a shoestring budget. And you have come up with the most beautifull piece of music ever. You are so proud that you alone have acomplished something that hundreds of other people could try for years to do and they would fail.

I walk in to a store. Buy a cd. Move to Russia. Sell the tracks to people online, and give a small percentage to a organisation who send you nothing and promote the belief that what I am doing is endorsed by you. But its not ilegial.

If you cant see anything morally wrong with that fine. But I do. There are plenty of smaller artists out there who don't earn the mega bucks and every penny counts. And as long as people have the mistaken belief that all is well buying off of these loophole sites the only people who suffer are the ones who can't afford to.

stevejazzx

krazy_8s wrote:

As for not seeing anything wrong with this, mabye I should use another analogy. Picture this, you have spent 6 months of your life in a studio. 6 hard months of constant work, living on a shoestring budget. And you have come up with the most beautifull piece of music ever. You are so proud that you alone have acomplished something that hundreds of other people could try for years to do and they would fail.

Ok, but a piece of art should never be treated like a product. If someones produces something beautiful then what does it matter who shares it, legally or illegally by which I mean in this day and age how would anyone even go about properly protecting a piece of art form being 'shared' illegally. It's practically impossible. The problem is that we have started treating art consumeristically. Putting a price on it and the artist becomes a businessman instead of an artist. And the righteous capitalist inside you will now say that everyone is entitled to protect their property etc. again thats the wrong way about it.

The artist will achieve recognition and therefore notoriety and therefore fame (to some degree at least ) and will seldom be left penniless because if they usurped from recieving maximum royalities on their music there is still money from merchandising, live shows, interviews, appearances, advertising and countless other souless endeavours. I seriously doubt wheter you can provide any inormation or evidence of any artist that 'allofmp3.com' caused major duress to. Loss of potenial revenue is all that can be claimed. Potential is quite important as if follows that if downloaders didn't get what they wanted from this source they would elsewhere and not necessarily conforming to legal means either and even if they couldn't get it from naywhere else there is noevidence to suggest that they would walk into a record store and pay full price for it. The whole interweb is a hive of of technically(by US law or Icelandic law or whatever) illegal material available for easy downloading. Newsgroups are the worst or best depending on your take, where thouseands of files can be available for free after a quick registration so focusing on or demonizing one website is very unhelpful regarding the overall probelm.

If we are going to talk about illegal we should turn our attetion to large corporations, supposedly representative of the very best in modern society and the capitalist values you espouse from your last post, yet any invetigation or research will show that it is these institutions that flout and subvert the law more than anyone else and to a much more painful extent on the whole of society. Do a quick google for companies who have been fined for not confroming to envoiromental policies and you will some of the biggest corporate names in the world. have a look at those fined for evading tax, discrimination, breaking competition laws etc etc etc. have a look at those companies who advertise to childern whoose Job it is to manipulate and exploit childern in order to sell thier products, products which are often are unsafe because standards were dodged, subverted or officals were bribed murdered extorted etc. Amoung these are your record companies who plan to sue for loss of revenue.

SeanW

If the major record labels would sell CDs that I could actually trust my computer with, and un-DRM'ed Mp3s, I'd buy all my music legally.

But they harass their loyal customers with malformed Audio CDs and limit online music sales to low quality DRM'ed rubbish, and in the case of movie and console game makers, regional encoding/region lockouts. Virtually every piece of legal media has a BTO (Better Than Original) vulnerability - i.e. the hacked, black market version works better. The media industry brought this on themselves. You snooze, you lose.

Cuddlesworth

stevejazzx wrote:

Ok, but a piece of art should never be treated like a product. If someones produces something beautiful then what does it matter who shares it, legally or illegally by which I mean in this day and age how would anyone even go about properly protecting a piece of art form being 'shared' illegally. It's practically impossible. The problem is that we have started treating art consumeristically. Putting a price on it and the artist becomes a businessman instead of an artist. And the righteous capitalist inside you will now say that everyone is entitled to protect their property etc. again thats the wrong way about it.

I don't see it as protecting my property, I see it as wanting to get paid for what I do and showing other people people the repect I would like shown to me. I'm not going to pay somebody money to steal what is not theirs.

I don't want to get into a argument about "art" but I do view artists as a valuable commodity in society and I believe they have a right to be paid for what they do.

stevejazzx wrote:

The artist will achieve recognition and therefore notoriety and therefore fame (to some degree at least ) and will seldom be left penniless because if they usurped from recieving maximum royalities on their music there is still money from merchandising, live shows, interviews, appearances, advertising and countless other souless endeavours. I seriously doubt wheter you can provide any inormation or evidence of any artist that 'allofmp3.com' caused major duress to.

I can't provide infformation or evidence relating to any major artists being affected. And the ones that are to small be be recognised cant be if a percentage of their listeners choose to download believing they actually get some money. Who are you to decide how much is their value as artists really worth? I will say this, sales of music fall by 15% every year. Thats means because of the proliferation of stealing a entire industry is dieing.

stevejazzx wrote:

Loss of potenial revenue is all that can be claimed. Potential is quite important as if follows that if downloaders didn't get what they wanted from this source they would elsewhere and not necessarily conforming to legal means either and even if they couldn't get it from naywhere else there is noevidence to suggest that they would walk into a record store and pay full price for it. The whole interweb is a hive of of technically(by US law or Icelandic law or whatever) illegal material available for easy downloading. Newsgroups are the worst or best depending on your take, where thouseands of files can be available for free after a quick registration so focusing on or demonizing one website is very unhelpful regarding the overall probelm.

All I see there is a constant "It's ok to download music, it doesnt hurt anybody" Potential revenue and market growth are all every important to any bussiness big or small. I dont agree with newsgroups or bit-torrent either, but the thread isnt about them its about allofmp3.

stevejazzx wrote:

If we are going to talk about illegal we should turn our attetion to large corporations, supposedly representative of the very best in modern society and the capitalist values you espouse from your last post, yet any invetigation or research will show that it is these institutions that flout and subvert the law more than anyone else and to a much more painful extent on the whole of society. Do a quick google for companies who have been fined for not confroming to envoiromental policies and you will some of the biggest corporate names in the world. have a look at those fined for evading tax, discrimination, breaking competition laws etc etc etc. have a look at those companies who advertise to childern whoose Job it is to manipulate and exploit childern in order to sell thier products, products which are often are unsafe because standards were dodged, subverted or officals were bribed murdered extorted etc.

Sweet Jesus man, grow up and live in the real world. People cheat, lie, steal and basicly screw each other over at any chance they get. A world full of corperations or a world full of hippy communists, the same things are going to happen. This is the reason why we have laws. And the reason why we should have some sense of morality so we dont have these things happening all the time. Do a quick google for artists who killed or pulled of scams? I can use google as a medium for showing how people screw other people over too. Tell you what do a google for allofmp3 and see how they are screwing over the artists whose music they sell.

stevejazzx wrote:

Amoung these are your record companies who plan to sue for loss of revenue.

They are suing with the full knowledge that they will nothing and will have to incur the costs themselves. They are doing it for attention to their cause.


I love this idea that you are getting that I agree with the record industry, I don't. It's been well know that the enitire industry is a haven for corruption and backhanded deals to keep the price of music inflated. BUT I don't believe you can simply wipe away this problem completely simply by ignoring copyright laws and the artists. You are simply

1-Driving up costs for the people who do bother to buy the music, because the companys are spending money on lawsuits and demand for singles in going down so prices must be inflated.

2-Justifying stealing.

3-Killing a industry that employs people with set skills.

stevejazzx

krazy_8s wrote:

I don't see it as protecting my property, I see it as wanting to get paid for what I do and showing other people people the repect I would like shown to me. I'm not going to pay somebody money to steal what is not theirs.

I don't want to get into a argument about "art" but I do view artists as a valuable commodity in society and I believe they have a right to be paid for what they do.

agree

krazy8s wrote:

I can't provide infformation or evidence relating to any major artists being affected. And the ones that are to small be be recognised cant be if a percentage of their listeners choose to download believing they actually get some money. Who are you to decide how much is their value as artists really worth? I will say this, sales of music fall by 15% every year. Thats means because of the proliferation of stealing a entire industry is dieing.

Well disagree. Again for every statistic you see saying sales are down you see contrary statistics saying sales are up and magizine polls saying that year on year music artists are getting richer. If the industry is dying it is because of lack of talent first and foremost and the general publics willingness to accept absolute sh**te as music.
In fact the resource of the internet is providing great publicity for unknown artists. In many circumstances it is very plausible that someone who illegally downloads music will contributre financially to the artist in the long run, be it through merchandising, tickets sales etc. if it was not for the initial illegal download then this person may end up never contributing to the artist. This is not an argument saying illegal downloading is ok but one which says that does at least generate valuable publicity for an artist.

krazy8s wrote:

All I see there is a constant "It's ok to download music, it doesnt hurt anybody" Potential revenue and market growth are all every important to any bussiness big or small. I dont agree with newsgroups or bit-torrent either, but the thread isnt about them its about allofmp3.

Of course it's about newsgroups and bittorrent etc, ever heard the old adage 'tough on crime tough on the causes of crime'?It's cheesy but it's true. You can't tackle a problem as widespread as this and confine it to the Russain Mafia*.
*Well i didn't want to get into your ideas of the Russian mafia running the show but lets just say that their quite naive. Have you ever been to the garbuska in moscow? I just got back from Moscow a couple of weeks ago and Russia is indeed a corrupt country in many regards but no more corrupt than say China or the US. It is large organisations that are lambasting the laws of world and who make outragous profits on the back massively overpriced media. Why should regular people have to pay these ridulous prices to share the work of the artist when the company selling it isn't even abiding by the law? Again i don't advocate piracy but rather draw attention to the issue not being balck and white on either side.

krazy8s wrote:

Sweet Jesus man, grow up and live in the real world. People cheat, lie, steal and basicly screw each other over at any chance they get. A world full of corperations or a world full of hippy communists, the same things are going to happen. This is the reason why we have laws. And the reason why we should have some sense of morality so we dont have these things happening all the time. Do a quick google for artists who killed or pulled of scams? I can use google as a medium for showing how people screw other people over too. Tell you what do a google for allofmp3 and see how they are screwing over the artists whose music they sell.

You essentially proved the very point I was making. That allofmp3 are no more corrupt than your run iof the mill corporation or artist that will attemp to sue them. Well done. As for growing up is concerned, perhaps the next time i travel to Russia you'd like to come with me and talk to a few russian politicians (as I did over christmas) and then maybe you might have a less naive idea of the Russain mafia.

krazy8s wrote:

They are suing with the full knowledge that they will nothing and will have to incur the costs themselves. They are doing it for attention to their cause.

They are doing it to draw attetion to thier cause? Hmm intersting Sony doesn't appear to have any problem selling their audio visual equipment in a shopping Mall in Russia dedicated to piracy. Perhaps if they really wanted ot draw attetion to thier cause they would close those stores.
Or perhaps it doesn't care because it making monstrous profits year on year.

krazy8s wrote:

I love this idea that you are getting that I agree with the record industry, I don't. It's been well know that the enitire industry is a haven for corruption and backhanded deals to keep the price of music inflated. BUT I don't believe you can simply wipe away this problem completely simply by ignoring copyright laws and the artists. You are simply
1-Driving up costs for the people who do bother to buy the music, because the companys are spending money on lawsuits and demand for singles in going down so prices must be inflated.

How many labels have folded since the advent of illegal downloading and mainstream internet access?

from
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20040903-4156.html
As a side note, I don't think the RIAA's crusade, done in the name of preserving the music industry's profits, is sound in logic. downloads, even those deemed illegal, do encourage people to listen to more music (and possibly buy it). In fact, BMG's profits are up big this year, despite illegal downloads. Perhaps the music industry should concentrate more on lowering the prices of $15 CDs to encourage sales. Oh wait, they were forced to in a colossal settlement for price-fixing.

krazy8s wrote:

Justifies Stealing

When will the wieght of international justice be brought against larger companies who justify stealing by price fixing, collusion, monopoly, false reporting etc etc . Start with those who claim to be good as they are ones who corrupt the most.

John

BMG's profits may be up but that doesn't mean that the artists are seeing any of the money. If you buy a CD, at least they'll get some money. If you buy from allofmp3 they get nothing. Let's forget major label artists because in fairness, if you sign a contract with those devils you're a lost cause and a slave to their machine. Let's look at smaller artists and labels who live from release to release. A vast section of the music industry is run from bedrooms, not from the big labels. Artists and small labels have to pay for:
- Studio time (recording, mixing, mastering)
- Pressing of the CD/record
- Printing of sleeves
- Advertising (optional)

The cost of the CDs on independent labels (judging from what I pay from a multitude of indie labels) is anywhere from $10 to $50 for a CD, depending on the packaging (not everything is released in a jewel case or a digipack), the size of the pressing (pressing 1000 CDs is cheaper than 500, 10000 is cheaper again, etc) and whatever else. There is a profit margin there but it's necessary to keep going, i.e. to keep releasing material, to keep food on the table, to keep it worthwhile to stay as an artist. Anyone who thinks a musician shouldn't be paid for their work needs their head examined.

The amount of hours and effort that go into such a release is massive from both the songwriting and recording side and from the management and production side. Most artists and labels aim to break even and get enough money together for the next release.

Allofmp3 buy one of these CDs and rip it to their site and sell it for a tiny fraction of what it cost. Even if they did pay royalties, how much is a 10% cut of a couple of cent going to go towards recouping costs? If you're going to download music at the expense of the artist, why pay for the privilege? Why not use a P2P program and get your music that way?

Just because an album is out there, it doesn't give you the right to get it at the expense of the artist. If you're interested to see what it sounds like, go into a shop and ask to listen to it or listen to samples online. If you like it, do the artist a favour and buy it through a proper channel. I know and know of many established artists who've had to get jobs outside of music because people think that €20 is too much to ask for a CD. Come off it, this country has never been richer and if the money charged in a shop here is too much for you, order online direct from a distributor, a label or an artist and save the money. If this is still too much for you, do the right thing and don't buy it from these Russian guys.

sceptre

krazy_8s wrote:

I will say this, sales of music fall by 15% every year.

No they don't. Makes a good sound-bite though. It'd be a better one if it were actually true.

The Sparrow

The problem here is not allofmp3 in moral or legal terms. The problem is big music corporations ripping people off. Maybe if you try and put a cd out yourself it costs a bit, but if a corporation puts it out with economies of scale it costs practically nothing. But yet they charge exorbitant prices for it.

Anyway, cds are so last century! If a band was in anyway smart they would bypass the whole releasing albums on cd thing and be begging sites like allofmp3 to stock their songs and then they can cut the overheads of having to issue cds whilst also reaching a massive audience and building up a fanbase and goodwill. The Arctic Monkeys followed this exact route and it worked for them.

I would really like it if people posting on this thread stopped comparing purchasing a cd with buying music on allofmp3. The two things are mostly unrelated. People who buy music online do not imo buy cds too because they are smart enough to download it straight to their mp3 players. So the discussion should be between Itunes and allofmp3. And quite clearly when you look at that, it is obvious that Itunes is ripping people off and they are the ones that are morally wrong.

Stop whiging about how expensive it is for new bands to put out cds. if they are stupid enough to be still concentrating on cd sales to get them noticed they don`t deserve to be successful.

And another thing, it is also a nonsense to keep waffling on about all these small artists that are supposedly being put on the bread line by websites such as allofmp3. If a band is that small and niche, they will not be sold on allofmp3! You actually have to be pretty succesful for them to take note and stock your albums (The Frames for instance, aren`t on allofmp3.com) So if you are being sold by allofmp3 you are a band that is already playing the corporate game and therefore deserve no sympathy when a company follows the letter of the law and sells your music legally at a fair price.

John

woooo232 wrote:

The problem here is not allofmp3 in moral or legal terms. The problem is big music corporations ripping people off. Maybe if you try and put a cd out yourself it costs a bit, but if a corporation puts it out with economies of scale it costs practically nothing. But yet they charge exorbitant prices for it.

Fair point but I don't really buy much major label stuff.

Anyway, cds are so last century! If a band was in anyway smart they would bypass the whole releasing albums on cd thing and be begging sites like allofmp3 to stock their songs and then they can cut the overheads of having to issue cds whilst also reaching a massive audience and building up a fanbase and goodwill. The Arctic Monkeys followed this exact route and it worked for them.

It worked for the Arctic Monkeys but it hasn't worked for thousands of bands. Arctic Monkeys got lucky. That's like saying that just because At The Drive-In got signed at one of their first shows that every band will get signed at one of their first shows. Most bands will off mp3s for free (yes, free) on their own site or myspace or can sell mp3s directly themselves. The thing is, not everyone wants mp3s. I certainly don't, they sound terrible. Give me CDs or vinyl any day.

I would really like it if people posting on this thread stopped comparing purchasing a cd with buying music on allofmp3. The two things are mostly unrelated. People who buy music online do not imo buy cds too because they are smart enough to download it straight to their mp3 players. So the discussion should be between Itunes and allofmp3. And quite clearly when you look at that, it is obvious that Itunes is ripping people off and they are the ones that are morally wrong.

I question the use of the term "smart enough" but apart from that, I hadn't thought of that angle before. I don't know how iTunes divvies out the money it charges but I do know that the artists see some of that money. Allofmp3 don't offer artists that same basic decency.

Stop whiging about how expensive it is for new bands to put out cds. if they are stupid enough to be still concentrating on cd sales to get them noticed they don`t deserve to be successful.

As I said before, not everyone wants mp3s. Not all music is suitable for mp3s. If you want your music to sound good, you mix it and master it appropriately to get the sound right. Mp3s will squish the sound to make it a small file which means you lose all the extreme frequencies and much of the dynamics of the music. You may only listen to your music on a laptop or an iPod but I listen to music on a stereo, mp3s do not sound good on even a cheap stereo, let alone a good one. That is a whole other argument though. But basically, if CDs are so obsolete, why do so many people who like music keep buying? Christ, even vinyl sells healthily enough for something that is supposedly "obsolete".

And another thing, it is also a nonsense to keep waffling on about all these small artists that are supposedly being put on the bread line by websites such as allofmp3. If a band is that small and niche, they will not be sold on allofmp3! You actually have to be pretty succesful for them to take note and stock your albums (The Frames for instance, aren`t on allofmp3.com) So if you are being sold by allofmp3 you are a band that is already playing the corporate game and therefore deserve no sympathy when a company follows the letter of the law and sells your music legally at a fair price.

Hang on, don't be so ignorant. On allofmp3 right now are albums by Einstuerzende Neubauten (who I know and I've discussed this very site with and they've all got non-band jobs and very nearly packed it in), Coil, Current 93, Khanate (who recently broke up because the singer needed to keep his job as the band couldn't possibly compete), Swans/Angels of Light (both bands led by one guy who self releases everything), Throbbing Gristle, Godspeed You! Black Emperor, The The and Wire. None of these bands are hugely well known outside of underground circles (and these are just a handful of bands that I bothered to search for). I've come into some sort of contact with many of them and none of them can live on their music alone. How would you feel if you were told whatever job you do that you weren't going to be paid for it, would you mind going to get another on top of it?

Basically this comes down to your selfishness over doing what's right. If you can't see the ethical issue with this site then I'm sorry, you're as bad as the Russian scum.

Doctor J

stevejazzx wrote:

Ok, but a piece of art should never be treated like a product. If someones produces something beautiful then what does it matter who shares it, legally or illegally by which I mean in this day and age how would anyone even go about properly protecting a piece of art form being 'shared' illegally. It's practically impossible. The problem is that we have started treating art consumeristically. Putting a price on it and the artist becomes a businessman instead of an artist. And the righteous capitalist inside you will now say that everyone is entitled to protect their property etc. again thats the wrong way about it.

The artist will achieve recognition and therefore notoriety and therefore fame (to some degree at least ) and will seldom be left penniless because if they usurped from recieving maximum royalities on their music there is still money from merchandising, live shows, interviews, appearances, advertising and countless other souless endeavours.

What a load of tripe! You seem to conveniently have bypassed the fact that it actually takes real money to record, produce and master music in the first place in the real world, in fact it would appear you've neglected the amount of money required just to get to the point where people can hear your music which you have spent a long time rehearsing to an acceptable level, have hear of your band and will attend your shows and buy your t-shirt. Sadly the studios and engineers don't exist on artistic credibility alone, the shameless capitalists require crazy materialistic things like electricity and rent bills to be paid, equipment to be bought and, get this, they actually require food and drink for sustinance and then they have the gall to actually charge artists to use their facilities. The bastards! Then, and this is where the iron fist of capitalism is really felt, they also require domestic bills to be paid too. Imagine the horror. I've heard that the guys who are in bands, musicians, also require foods and liquids to live too. A mate of mine says they also need places to live and bills to be paid like normal people but my other mate La La McLooloo says they live on a beautiful artistic commune, where everything is free and the beer flows like wine. There's also a rumour going around that those swine in the airlines require money up front when bands decide to go on tour, so do the guys hiring out the van. Apparently the venues want money too for hiring their PA and their venue. Imagine the cheek. It seems the promoter needs to magic up some capitalist money too in order to get those posters promoting the tour printed. It seems people won't go to gigs unless they've heard about it somehow, before the gig takes place. Then the promoter is kicking up a fuss saying he's never heard of this magic band who live on fresh air cos they don't sell any records, that he's not going to invest capital bringing a band in who don't shift units, apparently he reckons if people aren't going to pay for their CD they're hardly going to pay into the venue to see a band they've never heard of. What shameful western capitalist scum. Wow. Amazing. It turns out it takes money to do all the cool things. Who wouldv'e thunk it? Now, if only there was a way for artists to be justly paid for their art so their art can actually continue to exist in the first place... hmmm... I wonder...?

You clearly have no idea of the level of income of 99.9% of the artists involved in releasing music and basing your arguement on 0.01% of what happens in the real world is kinda flawed just a wee smidge. Bono and the Coldplay foks represent actually a very, very, very, small percentage of what really happens. The vast majority of bands I know and listen to work normal jobs like you and me for a living. They tour when they can get time off. They frequently have to quit their jobs to go on brief tours, existing on the bountiful riches they no doubt make selling merch until the tour ends and the dream turns sour and they've got to get a regular income going again in order to fund another small tour and maybe a few night in a cheap studio and keep the rehearsal room paid for another while. The vast majority of bands get meagre royalty payments as is, but hey, when you don't have much to start off with, a little counts for a lot. Maybe Bono won't notice 20,000 less CD sales but it would mean a hell of a lot to the vast majority of bands I listen to.

Money is what makes the real world real. Sorry if this capitalist newsflash is shocking, and I'm disappointed the Socialist Worker hasn't reported it, but it takes money for you to hear music you think you should get for free. All this talk of "artistic" bull**** has no grounding in modern reality. There is nothing artistic about the music business. Someone has to pay for the music, which you don't think should cost anything, to exist. Until such time as music can be created, rehearsed, recorded, promoted and bands can live for free then I would say they're entirely justified to expect reimbursement for their effort.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not endorsing the established order of the music industry, I would entirely agree the label system is evil and working against the interested of the artists involved, but stealing music from musicians isn't the answer even if you have twisted logic in such a way that you feel you are acheiving some sort of hollow victory over the labels by theiving. There are plenty of bands starting their own labels and releasing their own music. There are plenty of indie labels putting out quality music on a shoestring budget. I think they deserve to be paid. I benefit from their work, and don't for a minute think it's not hard work. When you make the conscious choice to take their music for free you may not have to sneak it out under your jacket, but it is very definitely thievery from the people who need the money.

There is a certain amount of revulsion to be felt from a legally endorsed bunch of scum suing an illegal bunch of scum, but let's hope it is a step towards the day when musicians finally get just pay for their efforts.

CiaranC

Don't get me wrong, I'm not endorsing the established order of the music industry

Are you sure? Sounds like it to me.

I for one am glad that the genie is out of the bottle, that artificial monopolies imposed on music distribution are on the brink of destruction, that all these parasites are heading for the dole office where they belong.

Youd swear that music never existed before the major labels or something.

Doctor J

Very sure. Perhaps you should read what I wrote. I think the logic of sticking one up the arse of the oppressor by stealing from the victim too is very flawed. Simple, really.

stevejazzx

Doctor J wrote:

What a load of tripe! You seem to conveniently have bypassed the fact that it actually takes real money to record, produce and master music in the first place in the real world, in fact it would appear you've neglected the amount of money required just to get to the point where people can hear your music which you have spent a long time rehearsing to an acceptable level, have hear of your band and will attend your shows and buy your t-shirt.

I was talking about established acts.
I do realise the capital investment required to lauch an act. I used to be the advisor to 'Rodrigo Y Gabriella' (I wrote the sleeve notes for their 'foc' album also) and so I have particular knowledge in this area. By the time Rodrigo Y Gabriella became commercially avialable on the internet they were already 'lauched and successful'. If anything it is the industry that takes most of thier profit away from them and certainly not the consumer.
You are missing the point i was trying to make previously. I was simply saying that the hyper commercialisation of the Industry is very bad thing. Bands don't make it because record companies view them as unprofitable not because allofmp3 are selling thier music on the cheap. I don't agree with allofmp3, in fact they look like a particular nasty bunch of characters but the demonization og such sites tends to throw all the focus on one area and neglect others. This is how big business gets way with screwing anyone and everyone in the way of their profits.

doctorj wrote:

Sadly the studios and engineers don't exist on artistic credibility alone, the shameless capitalists require crazy materialistic things like electricity and rent bills to be paid, equipment to be bought and, get this, they actually require food and drink for sustinance and then they have the gall to actually charge artists to use their facilities. The bastards! Then, and this is where the iron fist of capitalism is really felt, they also require domestic bills to be paid too. Imagine the horror. I've heard that the guys who are in bands, musicians, also require foods and liquids to live too. A mate of mine says they also need places to live and bills to be paid like normal people but my other mate La La McLooloo says they live on a beautiful artistic commune, where everything is free and the beer flows like wine. There's also a rumour going around that those swine in the airlines require money up front when bands decide to go on tour, so do the guys hiring out the van. Apparently the venues want money too for hiring their PA and their venue. Imagine the cheek. It seems the promoter needs to magic up some capitalist money too in order to get those posters promoting the tour printed. It seems people won't go to gigs unless they've heard about it somehow, before the gig takes place. Then the promoter is kicking up a fuss saying he's never heard of this magic band who live on fresh air cos they don't sell any records, that he's not going to invest capital bringing a band in who don't shift units, apparently he reckons if people aren't going to pay for their CD they're hardly going to pay into the venue to see a band they've never heard of. What shameful western capitalist scum. Wow. Amazing. It turns out it takes money to do all the cool things. Who wouldv'e thunk it? Now, if only there was a way for artists to be justly paid for their art so their art can actually continue to exist in the first place... hmmm... I wonder...?

Wow. Thats a lot of sracasm I got you point after the first sentence btw. A little overkill don't you think?
Anyways, Fair enough perhaps I was banging on too much about captialism and that sounds unrealistic to such a hardened realist as yourself, but it really is the probelm. Paying bills etc and getting paid for what you do is course in every sense fine but capitalism in modern society is dictating our morals also while simutaneoulsy getting away with crimes against regular ordinary people....that's what I have a problem with.

doctorj wrote:

You clearly have no idea of the level of income of 99.9% of the artists involved in releasing music and basing your arguement on 0.01% of what happens in the real world is kinda flawed just a wee smidge. Bono and the Coldplay foks represent actually a very, very, very, small percentage of what really happens. The vast majority of bands I know and listen to work normal jobs like you and me for a living. They tour when they can get time off. They frequently have to quit their jobs to go on brief tours, existing on the bountiful riches they no doubt make selling merch until the tour ends and the dream turns sour and they've got to get a regular income going again in order to fund another small tour and maybe a few night in a cheap studio and keep the rehearsal room paid for another while. The vast majority of bands get meagre royalty payments as is, but hey, when you don't have much to start off with, a little counts for a lot. Maybe Bono won't notice 20,000 less CD sales but it would mean a hell of a lot to the vast majority of bands I listen to.

99.9 and 0.01% are very intersting statistics indeed. They are also pointless. My argument was based around larger established acts and coporations not your mate 'dave' the bassist. In your reply you are givng me an argument and then arguing against me. It's as if you believe that I I believe that small bands trying to make should be shafted by the illegal downloader at every chance, while all along saying to myself that 'ahh they'll be ok'. I don't think this at all, besides as has been said often in this thread
how often and to what extent is a small band trying to make it affected directly be it financially or otherwise by the illegal downloading of their released or unreleased material? This is the point I was debating not the bizare idea you seem to have.

doctorj wrote:

Money is what makes the real world real. Sorry if this capitalist newsflash is shocking, and I'm disappointed the Socialist Worker hasn't reported it, but it takes money for you to hear music you think you should get for free. All this talk of "artistic" bull**** has no grounding in modern reality. There is nothing artistic about the music business. Someone has to pay for the music, which you don't think should cost anything, to exist. Until such time as music can be created, rehearsed, recorded, promoted and bands can live for free then I would say they're entirely justified to expect reimbursement for their effort.

I don't know what to say to your idea of there being no art left in the music industry except that it is exactly what I was saying. Shame isn't it?

doctorj wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I'm not endorsing the established order of the music industry, I would entirely agree the label system is evil and working against the interested of the artists involved, but stealing music from musicians isn't the answer even if you have twisted logic in such a way that you feel you are acheiving some sort of hollow victory over the labels by theiving. There are plenty of bands starting their own labels and releasing their own music. There are plenty of indie labels putting out quality music on a shoestring budget. I think they deserve to be paid. I benefit from their work, and don't for a minute think it's not hard work. When you make the conscious choice to take their music for free you may not have to sneak it out under your jacket, but it is very definitely thievery from the people who need the money.

I agree with you.This part makes sense and i never argued against it.

doctorj wrote:

There is a certain amount of revulsion to be felt from a legally endorsed bunch of scum suing an illegal bunch of scum, but let's hope it is a step towards the day when musicians finally get just pay for their efforts.

I get your point absolutely but the legally endorsed bunch have already gotten away with too much. Warner Bros. relaeased Superman 2 on dvd at a unbelievably low price in China to counteract piracy. A spokesman for warner Bros. added 'We'll beat them (the pirates) either way'.
Now if it wasn't for piracy would we have achieved that. Perhaps while corporation insist on charging their extornists prices for music my default position on piracy is 'it's an necessary evil'.

The Sparrow

John wrote:

How would you feel if you were told whatever job you do that you weren't going to be paid for it, would you mind going to get another on top of it?

Basically this comes down to your selfishness over doing what's right. If you can't see the ethical issue with this site then I'm sorry, you're as bad as the Russian scum.

I'm gonna let the last comment go because I don`t want to start a slanging match with you... BUT you seem to think that musicians are somehow more special than everyone else and that they deserve more than everyone else. Lots of people are told everyday that they are being made redundant or that their talents are not working in whatever job they are doing. It is the way the world works. Just like the music business, if you are good enough you will be succesful and if not, do something else! I don`t care if they have to work two jobs... lots of people have to do that just to survive. Every band like that on allofmp3 should be delighted to be on that website where they have a captive audience of millions who may stumble across their music and then tell their friends and they tell more friends and bam they have a fanbase. But only if they are good enough! If you are not good enough though, do what everyone else in the world has to do and do something else.

And if you don`t want to do that, fine follow your dream and fair play but don`t start whining to me about how hard it is and how unfair the system is!

Doctor J

stevejazzx wrote:

I was talking about established acts.
I do realise the capital investment required to lauch an act. I used to be the advisor to 'Rodrigo Y Gabriella' (I wrote the sleeve notes for their 'foc' album also) and so I have particular knowledge in this area. By the time Rodrigo Y Gabriella became commercially avialable on the internet they were already 'lauched and successful'. If anything it is the industry that takes most of thier profit away from them and certainly not the consumer.
You are missing the point i was trying to make previously. I was simply saying that the hyper commercialisation of the Industry is very bad thing. Bands don't make it because record companies view them as unprofitable not because allofmp3 are selling thier music on the cheap. I don't agree with allofmp3, in fact they look like a particular nasty bunch of characters but the demonization og such sites tends to throw all the focus on one area and neglect others. This is how big business gets way with screwing anyone and everyone in the way of their profits.



Wow. Thats a lot of sracasm I got you point after the first sentence btw. A little overkill don't you think?
Anyways, Fair enough perhaps I was banging on too much about captialism and that sounds unrealistic to such a hardened realist as yourself, but it really is the probelm. Paying bills etc and getting paid for what you do is course in every sense fine but capitalism in modern society is dictating our morals also while simutaneoulsy getting away with crimes against regular ordinary people....that's what I have a problem with.



99.9 and 0.01% are very intersting statistics indeed. They are also pointless. My argument was based around larger established acts and coporations not your mate 'dave' the bassist. In your reply you are givng me an argument and then arguing against me. It's as if you believe that I I believe that small bands trying to make should be shafted by the illegal downloader at every chance, while all along saying to myself that 'ahh they'll be ok'. I don't think this at all, besides as has been said often in this thread
how often and to what extent is a small band trying to make it affected directly be it financially or otherwise by the illegal downloading of their released or unreleased material? This is the point I was debating not the bizare idea you seem to have.


I don't know what to say to your idea of there being no art left in the music industry except that it is exactly what I was saying. Shame isn't it?



I agree with you.This part makes sense and i never argued against it.


I get your point absolutely but the legally endorsed bunch have already gotten away with too much. Warner Bros. relaeased Superman 2 on dvd at a unbelievably low price in China to counteract piracy. A spokesman for warner Bros. added 'We'll beat them (the pirates) either way'.
Now if it wasn't for piracy would we have achieved that. Perhaps while corporation insist on charging their extornists prices for music my default position on piracy is 'it's an necessary evil'.

Fair enough, but tell me this, why is it ok to take music without paying from an established act? At what point does an act be termed established and why doesn't it matter whether they get paid from that point? How is an artist not getting paid for their work going to help the artist? There is a nasty status quo present which isn't going to be changed by artists not getting paid. Yes, the business side of the whole thing is disgusting but I've yet to see someone explain how stealing music is going to change that. There are plenty of acts who'd be lucky to sell even 25,000 copies of their albums whose music appears on these sites. They may not top the download charts but at that level a little means quite a lot. Stealing from artists isn't going to change the music industry.

Doctor J

Let's have a show of hands from all the heroes bringing down the music industry, how many of you stole cd's, or tapes, or vinyl from shops before downloading became available? I mean, it's still the nasty record industry and we all know the savage markup they put on each cd, that's before those bastards in HMV and the likes add their chunk. The artist is getting sod all royalties anyway, so it's ok to steal cd's too, right?

Or is it just ok to download cos it doesn't feel like stealing when you don't have to sneak something physical out of the shop?

stevejazzx

Doctor J wrote:

Fair enough, but tell me this, why is it ok to take music without paying from an established act? At what point does an act be termed established and why doesn't it matter whether they get paid from that point? How is an artist not getting paid for their work going to help the artist? There is a nasty status quo present which isn't going to be changed by artists not getting paid. Yes, the business side of the whole thing is disgusting but I've yet to see someone explain how stealing music is going to change that. There are plenty of acts who'd be lucky to sell even 25,000 copies of their albums whose music appears on these sites. They may not top the download charts but at that level a little means quite a lot. Stealing from artists isn't going to change the music industry.

I take your points and you are correct. I would essentially agree with all those points with the possible exception that while I believe that 'illegal downloading' is wrong, it's hard to rest all the blame for act upon those carrying out the downloading. There seems to be a lot problems which have contributed to the current situation and until the whole thing is clearly fairly and consistently regualted I can't anything changing.

stevejazzx

Doctor J wrote:

Let's have a show of hands from all the heroes bringing down the music industry, how many of you stole cd's, or tapes, or vinyl from shops before downloading became available? I mean, it's still the nasty record industry and we all know the savage markup they put on each cd, that's before those bastards in HMV and the likes add their chunk. The artist is getting sod all royalties anyway, so it's ok to steal cd's too, right?

Or is it just ok to download cos it doesn't feel like stealing when you don't have to sneak something physical out of the shop?

But there is another facet to this as copyright doesn't just cover copying or downloading, it covers illegal/unauthorised lending, hiring, viewing for public performance etc. Ever lent a cd to friend? Had people over your house wathching a movie? Taped music from the radio? Or covered a piece of music without the consent of the owner in advance? All of those are technically illegal although to be fair in most instances (with the exception of covering music) a user can claim fair usage as a defense. The point is that the limitations being put on something legally purchased are becoming ridiculous. DRM is becoming more and more restrictive with the end result again I believe of causing more piracy. People will be fed up if they legally download a song or movie and then can't legally back it up/or store it because it embedded with copy restrictions.

Doctor J

I agree entirely. As I've said though, I can't see the logic behind stealing from the artist. It won't achieve anything other than making life harder for the people whose creativity we should be celebrating for making our lives a better place. We can all agree that the industry is geared so the artist makes the least as it is, so what good is downloading doing to anyone who loves music and wants bands to continue to create and release music? It's only human nature to take advantage of a situation, be it downloading for free or getting a band to sign an unfair contract, if you can get away with, chances are you'll go for it. In the case of allofmp3 getting taken to court, it's a matter of some people who, surely we can all agree, have done nothing positive for any of the artists whose work they sell and make money off and I can't see how them getting shut down is a bad thing. The legalised business is a different battle.

It's up to bands to start copping on and exploiting the avenues available for making a living off their music and realise they don't need the music business as much as the music business needs them. To do that though, they first need control of their music and they have no control with allofmp3 and their ilk. Why would your average punter pay a decent price for something they can get, no strings attached, for a paltry sum?

The Sparrow

Doctor J wrote:

Let's have a show of hands from all the heroes bringing down the music industry, how many of you stole cd's, or tapes, or vinyl from shops before downloading became available? I mean, it's still the nasty record industry and we all know the savage markup they put on each cd, that's before those bastards in HMV and the likes add their chunk. The artist is getting sod all royalties anyway, so it's ok to steal cd's too, right?

Or is it just ok to download cos it doesn't feel like stealing when you don't have to sneak something physical out of the shop?

That is ridiculous... Please link me to any judgement anywhere that has found allofmp3 illegal? Quite simply, stealing a CD is illegal whereas downloading from allofmp3 is LEGAL!

Here is the thing though, I would be perfectly happy downloading from whomever if I was charged a fair price and I then received full ownership of the music or content that I downloaded. Not like at the moment where record companies expect me to pay an exorbitant amount of money and then use DRM to completely restrict my use of what I have have just been ripped off for. Its the same as if I bought a book in Easons or wherever for a ridiculously high price but I was only able to read it inside an Easons store. If I buy something, I want to own it and do what it anything that I legally wish to.

Even if they only cut there price by half, I would download tracks for 50 cents a pop (which would still mean massive profit for them) if I had ownership of the music after I downloaded it. Otherwise it is a nonsense. Allofmp3 has been investigated lots of times by Russian prosecutors and not once have they been found guilty of breaching any law. SO please stop comparing allofmp3 to stealing. Downloading from P2P is illegal and wrong and so is stealing a CD. Downloading from allofmp3 is perfectly legal as far as I can see

stevejazzx

Well, we'll never own music entirely, only the artist should have that priviledge...in Princes case Warner bros. tried to take ownership of the masters to his music but he eventually got them. George Michael endured a massive court case with Sony for his. Another example of big corporations trying to litreally own everything. I think a fair compromise would be to let let people have full digital access to the media content.

As for allofmp3 being legal or not is a very tricky question. I recently visited a place in moscow called the garbuska. It is a shopping mall as big as dundrum shopping center. It is full of legal outlets like Sony, Aiwa, etc and retailers selling mobile phones and digital cameras etc. It is also jam packed full of stalls where people are openly selling(the place is patrioled by Russain Police) pirated wares of every nature. Everything from the very latest DVDs....I picked up a movie called 'the good Shepard' as part of my research /ahem/ that movie isn't even in cinemas over here yet. They were also selling every convieable piece of software you can imagine, from any CAD program you want to Vista Premium. The frightening thing is that media they sell has such good packaging to go along with it, an indication that htere is significant investment in the trade. You get a full dvd case with inlay etc. the good shepard cost just 150 rubels which is about 4 euro. i could have bought countless PC games(or xbox or even xbo360-burned onto dual layer discs fully packaged) for just 3 euro each. They even had one with fifa07 nhl 07 and nba 07 all on one dvddisc. It's Massive business in Russia.

More interstingly though there were stalls which had excellent packaging on thier products. They looked real but they were riduculously cheap. It turns out that these products (which accounted for about 5% of the store) were genuine to an extent. It was explained to me that there were licenses given to distributors to sell x amount of a certain product legally, a bulk license so to speak. A very fishy practice. Allofmp3 are doing more or less the same thing, except they are most probably not declaring their offical sales. They more than liklely have multiple bank accounts and pass money around to each. Accounts are closed monthly and reopend in other banks etc making a paper trail very difficult. In Russia noone goes out of business if they are friends of the administration. In the case of allofmp3 it would appear that the authorities have been very lenient on them to date indicating that someone involved has good connections, not necessarily the Russain mafia, in fact most likley not, more likley just a businessman with mafia/administration friends. if the matter gained significant international attention, enough to embarass Putins administration then allofmp3 would be gone tomorrow but such a thing is unlikley. As I said before big companies are happy to trade in the illegal mall which is the garbuska, so as long as it remains an undercurrent issue then the Russain government and big business will essentially just turn a blind eye to the whole affair.

another article about it
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/7991.cfm

stovelid

Bullsh*t.

Provide evidence please or quit parroting vested record company interests.

Craig Murphy wrote:

they're then selling on their credit card details to crooks.

Do you work in the business?

Funny how you start bleating when piracy becomes a problem but had no problems with f*cking mugs like me having to pay through the nose for music since I was a kid.

Craig Murphy wrote:

When i contacted them about how OUR RELEASES got onto the sites